The Northeast region of the United States just experienced a late autumn hurricane. This is not common.
Nonetheless, we cannot make the following claim: climate change caused Hurricane Sandy.
Why?
We must remember the following:
If we are to make a causal claim amidst an inability to locate the mechanics of a particular claim about a singular incident, we embolden those who seek to disagree with the logic of the general mechanics.
Those who seek to deny or downplay the role of climate change will seize upon these claims as circumstantial and reaching (which they are). Then, in a deceptive but discursively effective maneuver, these climate-change know-nothings will go further by denying the ability to know this kind of causation even as a mere correlation. If they are even bolder, they will suggest that because correlation cannot be known perhaps the phenomenon (climate change) cannot itself be important.
This logic is incorrect. There is no reason to deduce from the inability to directly infer causation a lack of correlative significance let alone dismiss the phenomenon as unimportant altogether. Nonetheless, logic is a slippery thing because it works its magic not in its own terms but in the much less scrutinized sphere of public discourse. This kind of logic with its skeptical overtones is easy to succumb to.
Those who seek to highlight the role of climate change ought not to waste their intellectual capital implying questionable causations but rather highlighting what I call the poor logic of inaction.
Climate change know-nothings believe that once they have dismissed the phenomenon, they can then insist that action towards addressing climate change is at best silly and at worst disruptive of other processes. This is seen in the Republican insistence that efforts to combat climate harm the economy. Of course, this narrow-minded understanding of the terrain of the economy asserts a kind of ontological primacy to the job market. It fails to recognize that the economy consists of man’s relationship to other things. The pillar of this relationship is his relationship to the environment in which he inhabits. The ontological primacy belongs to climate change, not 12 million jobs. The short-term harmful political implications of recognizing this as the truth doesn’t make it less true.
Anyway, it is this logic of dismissal and therefore justified inaction that should be attacked by those who propose that we do something about climate change.
We must argue that whether climate change is here or not, extreme weather (a late October hurricane most definitely qualifies as this) requires a pro-active attempt to deal with it. This pro-active attempt consists of the wide variety of tactics, consisting of alternative, preventative, and coping measures that we use to address the possible sources, and consequences of climate change.
Notice here that I do not insist on acceptance of climate change as a first principle. Obviuosly, my goal here is not to enshrine a ridiculous “right to decide” on the issue of climate change. Frankly, this right doesn’t exist. It’s absurd that so large a climate change denying contingent not only exists but has access to levers of power. Nonetheless, if we use belief in climate change as a first principle, then we empower the logic of inaction. We say, if you don’t believe in it then you aren’t obliged to do anything about it. In insisting not on climate change acceptance but extreme weather responsiveness as a first principle, we would be far more effective in addressing the enormous problems that a new global weather system will wreak on our species.
This shift that I am proposing amounts to a popular discursive shift. In my estimation, it is absolutely crucial.
Hey Houston,
The question still remains: how do you bridge the logic gap between tangible incidents and climate change? By not appealing to climate change as first principle, you risk staying forever on the defensive–that is, building ramparts to hold of hurricanes, rather than combating what actually matters. In the "less scrutinized sphere of public discourse", isn't backing off of the root of the problem even easier to misconstrue?
Marcel,
You raise a good point. Nonetheless, I think you're limiting the kind of action that comes out of a recognition of severe weather as a threat to merely defensive actions.
Fundamentally, I believe that a vast amount of people have important stake invested in denying global change. This is a fact not likely to change soon. Furthermore, these stakes are not purely fiduciary. A great deal of religious theodicy simply rules out the possibility of catastrophic treatment of the earth. Moreover there exists a powerful current of socio-cultural identities that work against the recognition of global climate change for a variety of deep reasons. I recommend William E. Connolly's Capitalism and Christianity, American Style specifically the chapter "Is eco-egalitarian capitalism possible?".
This being the case, there is a significant population that will not and possibly cannot (at least with a pragmatist conception of ability) acknowledge climate change as a first principle.
Nonetheless, many of the actions required to combat climate change can be re-framed in a way that makes them more widely taken. These actions would directed against not just the effects but also the causes of climate change.
I believe the follow logic possible:
"I don't believe in the phenomena of climate change. That said, I see that the we have been seeing record hot temperatures for the last couple of summers. These trends are worrisome. I know that carbon can produce heat so despite not believing that climate change is really afoot, would like to reduce my impact to be careful. After all, if I am wrong (or I simply cannot say one way or another) it is best to side with caution."
This logic might appear slightly contradictory when viewed on high but it is one that could gain real traction amongst the public.
It's essentially a palatable form of environmentalism that doesn't require a grand theory of environment nor any climate change physical or metaphysical theories. Above all, the case for this kind of pragmatic action is conservative. It doesn't require forays into new ideas of questionable moral character. It just requires caution and pre-emptive concern for the possibility that our actions have consequences we didn't directly plan for.
With regards to the types of action, things like driving less, consuming resources more consciously, etc… are not simply reactionary actions. They are real ways to address the causes of climate change.
Let's not stigmatize the doubters. Let's stigmatize the inactive.